At the moment there is a wee battle ragging in the state of Idaho over whether or not religious texts ought to be banned from schools.
Nampa Classical Academy v. William Goesling
The Idaho Public Charter School Commission (IPCSC) has placed a full ban to prevent Christian texts from being included in the curriculum at The Nampa Classical Academy. The academy, represented by the Allience Defence Fund (ADF) has taken the IDPCSC to court, arguing:
“The government’s hyperactive censorship of classical religious texts severely limits the education of students by leaving them with an incomplete understanding of history and their heritage.” — David Cortman, ADF Senior Counsel
"...a wholesale ban on such books conflicts with established U.S. Supreme Court precedent stating that even 'the Bible may constitutionally be used in an appropriate study of history, civilization, ethics, comparative religion, or the like." — Cortman
"Not only is the commission on safe constitutional ground to allow the school to use the Bible as an educational resource, it would be unconstitutional to deny the school the ability to include it as one resource among its many other texts." — Cortman
 |
| http://www.888webtoday.com/articles/viewnews.cgi?id=EkZlVFyplVytAIxcjO |
But where are all of the quotes defending the IPCSC?
I sure haven't found any. The best I came across was a summary of their strongest, perhaps only, argument:
"...use of Scripture as a primary text necessarily promotes one religious view over another, picking between denominational versions - for example - in a way that permits government discretion in restricting its use."*
A valid point but is that all they've got?
I gathered my housemates (a theological philosopher & a linguist) together and we had a late night brainstorm for all the reasons why the Bible should be banned from schools. We struggled. No wonder the IPCSC haven't published much in their defence. At a loose end we had to come up with reasons, however unreasonable, that we could imagine people offering in defence of the ban. It was easier to think of reasons why the Bibles message should not be taught in schools than it was to think why the Bible should not be use as a complimentary primary-source document, when appropriate, i.e. when it influenced the curriculum topics such as history or literature.
Here's our list.
1) The Bible is an unreliable historical document.
2) Teachers and children could misunderstand or misinterpret the Bible.
3) The Bible contains too much violence.
4) If we include one religious text in the curriculum we would have to study all of the religious texts and there simply is not time for that.
5) Religious texts are too complex for a child.
6) It is not the teachers job to be educating children on religious and spiritual subjects. That is the parent's job.
7) Misinformed teaching of a religious text or the teaching of a variety of texts could lead children astray from their own religions. This would predominately be a problem for devote families who don't want their children exposed to other religions, some of which may be considered demonic by some congregations.
8) The Bible and other religious texts naturally educe discussion and debate. There is not enough time in a class to allow for this distraction from the main curriculum. If a religious text is going to be taught at all then there should be a specific class devoted to the purpose of religious discussion.
9) Teaching religious texts in public schools blurs the line for separation of church and state.
10) Only teachers educated in religious texts or theology ought to teach on that subject.
11) Religious practitioners could be insulted that the Bible would be used for only historical or literary purposes because in their eyes it deserves to be treated as much more than that. It is a Holy Book, not something to be tossed around in class as nothing more than background reading.
*(http://www.bjconline.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4464&Itemid=134)
